What I make of it is exactly what it says. "Upon exercise" provides no time reference, past present or future. For example, one could say:
"Upon approval of the Declaration of Independence, America declared itself free of British tyranny."
Other phrases indicate it's a done deal:
"Mr. Nathoo and Mr. Kassam are the beneficial owners of 1,814,089 shares of Common Stock held by the Fund."
"the securities referred to above were acquired and held in the ordinary course of business"
"This Amendment relates to the Common Stock of the Issuer purchased by a private fund"
These three statements are clearly indicative of a prior activity.
My hypothesis is merely a seed hypothesis, hoping to stimulate intelligent discussion as to WHY anyone would pay 8 times market price for these shares. Because I cannot conceive of any logical situation where the end objective of share ownership should be undertaken in the most expensive way possible, I have conjectured that the purpose of the transaction has little to do with stock ownership, and more to do with eliminating the warrants from hindering someone's future plans. Merely a hypothesis... I was hoping others might be inclined to chime in with other feasible reasons they would have paid so much to receive so little in exchange.
Do you have any theories? I doubt they plopped down $6M just to drive speculation on a message board!
Message in reply to:
What do you make of the term “upon exercise”? That doesn’t jive.
In any event this doesn’t make sense but hey if Anson wants to pay 7x the market price have at it!!!
